Secondary menu

Tertiary Menu

Attempted Assassination of Congresswoman Giffords in Arizona

A blog (from "web blog") is a discussion or informational site consisting of discrete entries ("posts") typically displayed newest first. All Corrente posts are front-paged; there is no up-rate or down-rate process. Corrente posts are almost entirely community moderated. We encourage a clash of ideas, and do not encourage a clash of persons.

If you are the author of this post, see the Edit tab ad Help (and Advanced Help) for detailed documentation.

The right wing is in revolutionary mode, they are now close to gain a seat in Congress if the shooting becomes a successful assassination, and they have already put the Democrats on notice that they have the support to wage war within the United States upon the Democratic Party. So it is move to the right, or else. This has happened in Israel already, where politicians have admitted that the assassination of Rabin led to a move to the right. Political violence works, that is why people do it. Political violence does not work, in that societies that lose their sense of civil norms, cease to function. The United States has lost these norms over time, both in our civil and popular culture.

How many films have you seen where the plot was:

Ordinary person wronged.

Ordinary person gets gooned up.

Ordinary person goes postal on the perp.

Ordinary person is exonerated.

Many have been released, and it is difficult to avoid the genre. It comes in male and female flavors, whether the wrong is economic harm, or sexual attack. As a staple of culture, think on what it tells people.

However, it is a staple of public culture, because we have made normative, the nomos, of the society a continual illegality, and disrespect for the ideas of fairness. A recent example is the "Ibanez case" in Massachusetts, where the state's highest court put the beat down on foreclosures without title, and title transfers that failed to meet even the semblance of compliance with the standards of the law.

It is impossible to condemn assassination with the full force of the social order, when our popular mythology, and economic reality, is of the res the order of things, being one of casual violence against common decency, where the mythically approved response, is to go on a personal killing spree. It speaks to a rage in the society, which is the analog of the Victorian repression of sexuality. The Victorians placed their superiority on greater artifice and greater naturalism, as well as a cult of romantic love. However, economically, they were constantly on the ragged edge of starvation, and therefore had to link sex to marriage, and marriage firmly to economics. This denied their founding literature, and created the genre of novel as exploration of infidelity: their deep fault line. The Victorians had a cult of the naturalistic romantic, but a practical fear of its obvious results. Our own age places revolution as a value in itself, and action as a virtue in itself. However, as our society relies on a vast structure to extract a few rents from a few places, process them through a very fragile supply chain, controlled by a relatively easy to disrupt digital architecture, actual change, is actually not allowed. Anyone who is really a revolutionary, has ever force imaginable against them.

Thus, what lust was to the Victorian, rage is to our own age: the hidden demon that is both worshipped, and feared.

-::-

The right wing sanctifies this rage, by combining it with reactionary intent. The right wing allows revolutionary violence in favor of a reactionary order. It can no longer be called plutocratic, because the bankers and other leaders do not actually control the capital. They do not own most of the factories, they do not own the resources. They own the pipes, but these pipes are virtual creatures: securitized mortgages, broadcast channels, even seemingly physical lines do not actually have the ability to exclude others, without force to do so.

Thus force, itself, is increasingly the currency of the society, rather than capital, or even physical assets. This is a shift from asset based money, where the money supply and the means of its expansion, was regulated through the proxy of home values, to a strategic money, where the question is quite simply one of the consequences of not accepting the increase in money, and the responses that it brings.

In doing so, the right wing creates a dislocated, poor, populist front, which is a revolutionary class, in favor of a right wing revolution. Palin's embrace of this front is not coincidental, her record of governance shows that she is that creature that is constantly erased from historiography, and sociology, because it is inconvenient: the right wing socialist.

The right would be demanding that the left disown an act even a fraction as violent. If the left has a single piece of wit about it, it would be to goad the moderates into demanding a denunciation, not only of the act, but of Palin's crosshairs, and SarahPac. The left should say "This is Terrorism!" because, in fact, it is terrorism: violence to send an expressly political message to suppress unwanted political action. The message from the right is for the center to return to a right wing- center alliance, with the right wing as the dominant partner, that is, the Bush coalition.

If the Democrats have any sense, they will begin demanding that politicians return any donations from "an organization that incites terrorism," which is what SarahPac, demonstrably, now is, an organization that incites terrorism. Giffords was shot for being a Democrat. She was not a liberal Democrat, nor a friend to the left, but she was a loyal Democrat on votes that had a core of rabid opposition in her district. It took courage for her to continue to do public events.

There are two lessons that need to be learned. The first is that the moderates must understand that they will not survive in coalition with the right, that the noose around their necks will tighten, and grown tighter with each year. The second is for the left to realize that if there is to be political courage, there must be political coverage. That means the willingness to put bodies in the line of fire, because otherwise, the center will see us as fair weather friends, and foul weather dead weights.

The bullet box is replacing the ballot box.

In large measure this is the fault of the moderates, they were happy with a "good enough" recovery, and have sat down and declared themselves the best of all possible worlds. Since this was a recovery for the rich, but not for everyone else, the inevitable result is violence in favor of the out party. Since there is no extreme left party available in any form, right wing socialism is the natural outlet for the violence.

If this lesson is not learned, that active recovery, combined with a forceful ideology, are the only counters to a reactionary revolution – and so far it has not been – then we will see more spiraling steps downward. This was the most successful attack, but far from the last.

Nobody on the left was outraged about "taking Hillary into a backroom" and she's the one that doesnt' come out. Or the Sarah Palin doll hanging from a tree in a noose, or the art exhibit with a gun to Sarah Palin's head. Or Sarah getting gang raped by a gang of NY thugs would be a good thing. My god, there were countless other violent expressions against those two candidates with almost no shock from media talking heads and the left.
It's easy to make the case that because that stuff is ok , it's easier for someone to commit violent acts against women.
I'm disgusted even playing this game.

I don't get the blaming of Sarah Palin for, or dragging her name into, everything that happens.

The profile here is a young, alienated white man. Sort of a typical profile. And, a high profile, attractive, maybe controversial (in AZ, what is not?) woman is the target. Also rather typical, or not unusual.

I think it is random in the sense that it is violence where the 'crazy' and the victim crossed paths. Or, that, because the victim is high profile, the 'crazy' easily targeted her as the cause of his problems. It does not appear to be a political statement. The guy's 'political' ramblings are really, probably just insane ramblings - not unusual either.

We are going to continue to see an increase in violence, random or otherwise, as our social structure continues to unravel, our economy slides away, the state becomes ever more repressive and viewpoints more polarized and antagonistic.

1. No, you probably didn't know the marks on the map were crosshairs, but you weren't the intended audience (and must have missed the "don't retreat, reload" rhetoric as well). However, her audience certainly did.

2. When a Vice Presidential Candidate with a history of using gun-oriented rhetoric and imagery puts up a poster putting a political opponent in crosshairs, and that same political opponent later gets shot... Well, mentioning that hardly constitutes dragging the candidate's name in, surely?

3. I mention, again, the history of right wing violence against abortion doctors, incited by web sites with pages like Palin's poster. That history is awfully easy to forget, seemingly. Odd, especially from defenders of women, especially since one might even see the technique as a precedent. Then again, because Palin does it, I guess that's OK? Not the kind of jersey I care to wear, thanks very much.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Maybe I am out of the loop on these things, but I just don't draw such a strong parallel.

I don't think it is just political, anymore than the killing of abortion doctors is really political. They are the self justifications of warped minds. The una-bomber thought he was fighting a cause, but he was really just crazy.

Unfortunately, when you have more stressors in society, people who previously could manage to maintain a fragile balance, will go over the edge. I believe we are going to see more of that.

I think it is a matter of some emphasis and context. I think that putting one person up as responsible for so much is too simplistic. Palin's chart existed in a larger context of violent imagery in politics and sports, even getting ahead in school and the workplace. I don't condone any of it.

Do have anything besides the fact that Palin's anti-abortion? I certainly have never heard her say anything condoning violence against clinic doctors or workers. And as I said above, even I (and I find a great deal of anti-abortion rhetoric horrifying and damaging to women) don't think that just being anti-abortion means you rationalize killing doctors or clinic workers.

Did anyone on this thread say that anti-abortion violence was unimportant? Where are these jerseys? I don't see them anywhere.

I definitely do not keep up with everything Palin says, but had she said anything even remotely along those lines I can't imagine it wouldn't have been emblazoned across the blogosphere.

Because if that is the criteria -- anti-abortion = condone murder, then again we have the problem of why put Palin forth as the standard bearer, when there are literally millions of others who fall under the same rubric? Many of which are just as famous as she is, and not all of the same party as she?

I also can't imagine that there aren't a very large number of politicians who can rival Palin in both the number and severity of "gun-oriented rhetoric." We already know she's not the only one who uses the crosshairs thing. It's not as if she's the first politician to mention guns. Heck, I bet other Republican politicians even used it! The only reason "everyone" knew about the Palin crosshairs pic was because it was Palin in the first place. Many others used it but she's the only one with the big press.

Palin seems to agree that she should expect criticism, or she wouldn't have removed the targets from her site, I expect. But while the pics aren't irrelevant, that doesn't mean they connection isn't being overplayed.

Aaahhh whatever. I'd be way more psyched up about the whole thing if what we were having is a national conversation about new Brady bill (the Giffords bill?), instead of Palin yet again.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

to name politicians she wanted removed from political viability. Perhaps she did not actually review the graphics, but, as the leader of the PAC she certainly should have. And it does fit her radical rightwing populism.

She could have used any number of other symbols and symbolic (metaphorical) language. But she chose to use gunsight target acquisition symbols.

For that, she should have been condemned by right, center, and lef -- by any responsible political and public figures. She was by some, not by others.

Now, whether her chart caused certain people to become part of this assassin's fixations cannot be known. There is only circumstantial evidence that it could be part of his learning or process or obsessions.

But, since he's now labeled "mentally ill" good liberals will blame tha illnesst, not the person himsefl or his political alignment. Or those who might have encouraged him....

The right would have no such compunction were this a conservative pol assassinated by a ragingly crazed lefty or liberal.

When I heard about this shooting yesterday, it brought back some of the feelings of loss and powerlessness that I felt as a young person who admired Jack Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. For awhile I couldn't think of any conservative figures killed by lefties, crazy or not. Wallace was shot, Reagan was shot at, Ford was shot at -- did any Republican or conservative pols get killed/assassinated?

I have no problem holding Palin accountable for the words and images of her SarahPAC. None whatsoever.

As Hillary said when Palin was given the VP slot, criticize her actions, ideas, ideology, not her personally. One of her clear actions was to allow that map to be used to raise funds.

Now, of course, I have to add that I hold persons who pictured Palin with a gun to her head as also condenmnable and contempitble. I would like to think that was obvious, but it is not, so let it be noted: I feel it is contemptible and very wrong.

I also concur with lambert that it is remarkable that the guy killed two figures "targeted" by the right.

I don't think Stirling's post would have been any different if it had been a Republican male politician who put figurative crosshairs on a Democratic politician, who then became the target of a spree shooter.

That Governor Palin and Representative Gifford are female seems besides the point.

"During the fall campaign, Sarah Palin, the former Republican vice-presidential candidate, posted a controversial map on her Facebook page depicting spots where Democrats were running for re-election; those Democrats were noted by crosshairs symbols like those seen through the scope of a gun. Ms. Giffords was among those on Ms. Palin’s map, which later removed the crosshairs symbols.

A statement posted on Ms. Palin’s Facebook page Saturday expressed her “sincere condolences” to the family of Ms. Giffords and the other shooting victims. Ms. Palin said that she and her family were praying for them “and for peace and justice. . . "

I think what scoutt said above has some merit. It's the same reason I posted my 5:14 comment - from the links provided, it's clear that Loughner is severely mentally ill, so I thought some elements of the political analysis were premature, and thought I should put up a comment before the bandwagon rolled too far. Thought about saying that explicitly, but decided to let Loughner's videos speak for themselves (i.e. providing that message implicitly).

Lambert: Certainly, the implications are political, and immediately so, regardless of the motives of the shooter.
That's a sidestep (seems to rather evade the point). The analysis is not simply about "implications", "regardless of the motives of the shooter".

Lambert: Newberry is not asserting a Palin -> poster -> shooter direct causal relationship in his post.
Well, you can argue this as a technicality. But again, it seems somwhat of a sidestep. See my own note about saying something implicitly. The general message seems clear.

Valhalla: Where was the outrage of the left against the violence imagery against women scoutt inventories?
The left has many strands. Ditto Lambert on this - many of us were speaking out adamantly. Though I would agree with your general point that the predominant response seemed to be a wink and a nod.

I found Stirling's comment about erasure of the right wing socialist (from historiography and sociology) an interesting point. And I think the Tea Party right is contributing to an atmosphere potentially supportive of violence, and Palin is not entirely without responsibility in this regard. But it's premature to draw too many conclusions in this case (especially given the apparent mental illness).

It can no longer be called plutocratic, because the bankers and other leaders do not actually control the capital. They do not own most of the factories, they do not own the resources. They own the pipes, but these pipes are virtual creatures: securitized mortgages, broadcast channels, even seemingly physical lines do not actually have the ability to exclude others, without force to do so.

Thus force, itself, is increasingly the currency of the society, rather than capital, or even physical assets. This is a shift from asset based money, where the money supply and the means of its expansion, was regulated through the proxy of home values, to a strategic money, where the question is quite simply one of the consequences of not accepting the increase in money, and the responses that it brings.

That's fine analysis. Not sure I agree, but there's food for thought.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

" a strategic money, where the question is quite simply one of the consequences of not accepting the increase in money"

I've read those two paragraphs several times, and everytime, I stumble on the phrase quoted above -- it's incoherent. "the question" is "one of the consequences", but what is the question? What is the referent for "the question"?

And quite disgusting. So glad you reminded us of those incidents in which 'liberals' have been strangely quiet.

Might not the actual violent words of some MALE right wingers have been a lot more likely to have contributed to this? Hell no, when you can blame a woman, I guess. Sickening.

Hello folks, can't we name some truly incendiary wing nuts? Or maybe the deranged perp himself? Probably there's some indication in his own writings which will indicate who he was listening to - just maybe we should wait for that evidence.

Where was the outrage of the left against the violence imagery against women scoutt inventories? (extremely briefly, I may add). How does that fit into this analysis of "the res the order of things, being one of casual violence against common decency, where the mythically approved response"? (and don't get me started again on "the left's" response to the Assange rape allegations).

Perhaps threats of violence against women are so commonplace and acceptable that the left are absolved from making them? Or somehow don't count as "political" violence worthy of analysis? Or maybe it's just so old and boring, where reactionary revolutionary violence is sexy and new?

I'd suggest that the rage in the country, and there is a lot of it, is located not only in the right-wing.

The really disappointing thing about this post (besides the fact that when I saw Stirling's name after reading umpteem ridiculous posts written just minutes after it happened I thought "great, Stirling will have something really interesting and nonstupid to say") is tying the target optic into the shooting.

Assassination and violence is a complex thing, and we know next to nothing about this shooter. Palin's graphic is offensive, yes, but not really any more offensive than a 1000 violent images we plod through every day. And to imply a cause and effect relationship in this one case with only that as an example is not only crap, but distracts from the main point of the post, with which I otherwise mostly agree.

Already today I've read an easy dozen blogs making either the implicit or explicit connection between the target visual and the shooting. And I think it's more than just the rush to update ourselves on breaking news (h/t Lambert), but a rush to find simplistic answers, bias-confirming and ultimately reassuring answers. If only Palin wouldn't have put little targets on her website! This would never have happened! See how right we all are sneer at her! How all events do conspire to confirm our bias against those bitter gun-toting rednecks! (oops, I forgot racist -- well I'm sure that will turn up sometime). Nothing going on here, folks, move it along!

I'm really not quite sure how to put this, but the value I've always found in Stirling's posts is his ability to create a coherent (and brilliant) analysis out of extremely complex social and political dynamics. The success of the right-wing revolutionary populism is fueled in great part by the massive abdication of everyone else, and especially on the left, to express a scrap of concern (nevermind action) towards the majority of people who are losing everything. And the expression of that disdain has many, many times been worse than Palin's web graphic.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

Find me the place where any direct, causal relation between Palin, the optic, and the shooting is asserted.* You cannot, because it is not there. Most of the discussion about Palin is framed quite clearly in terms of what the Ds would do if they had any sense, and the rest is Palin as "right wing socialist."

* * *

Agreed on the disdain.

* * *

My takeaway is the idea that violence is what backs the currency. That is a very interesting idea that I need to think about.

NOTE * Your words: "And to imply a cause and effect relationship in this one case with only that as an example is not only crap..."

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

How many implicit or explicit expressions of violence against not-us are there by the right-wing/Tea Partiers floating around on the internet? Thousands? Millions?

As far as implied violence goes, Palin's graphic isn't even out of the ordinary as far as "mainstream" political and social discourse goes. And I don't just mean ordinary for the right-wing. I remember the threats of "blood in the streets" if Obama didn't get the nomination as early as the first weeks of March in '08. Reactionary rage-channeling is not unique to the right-wing; it's just that the left is a bit behind as to the count (plus they seem to have wisely aimed most of it at females, where it's much more acceptable and likely to go unremarked upon).

That doesn't mean Palin's targets picture wasn't offensive (it was) or that it didn't play its part within a much greater culture of violence (including the idea of to-be-admired revolutionary violence). But most of Stirling's post was about a much larger point which is rapidly on its way to oblivion in the context of the blogwide rush to connect Palin's picture to this shooting particularly.

Politically, it probably would be smart in the short term for the Democrats to start demanding the stuff Stirling itemizes, but I seriously doubt it will bring moderates any closer to realizing they've been the dopes in a giant economic con by the elites. Rather it will just serve as another Palin-based distraction, based on the number of websites that have posted that target picture since 2 this afternoon.

And the louder the Democrats make their demands, the closer they are to just one left-wing crazy taking a shot at a right-winger away from destroying any credibility they have on that score. (for my part, they have pretty little credibility as the party of peace and nonviolence). Just because the right-wing slaps the terrorist label on everyone in sight doesn't mean it's a good thing we ought to emulate.

Violence backing the currency is probably quite true; I think there are many historical examples of that (empires everywhere, really). It's whether it has a particular or rare application to right-wing populism that's the interesting question.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

Initially, let me pull through unrefuted point that on causual relationships. You don't disagree, so assume you agree. Newberry is not asserting a Palin -> poster -> shooter direct causal relationship in his post. Since there are several bullshit assertions to that effect on this thread, I think it's important to point that out.

* * *

For my part... I'm a blogger. This is a story I have to write about. I think that both parties form a single system, and that the Ds therefore kill just as many people as the Rs do. And I raise the issue of what it would be smart for the Ds to do only to place Stirling's statement in the correct context, which several bullshit comments on this thread do not do.

Good point on "blood in the streets." I think, though, that with the Ds (and again, both parties are a single system) that sort of talk is "just talk." For the most part, the Ds don't have the skills, don't have the operational experience, don't use weaponry as cultural markers, etc. For the most part, the Rs are "just talk" as well; most of the militia movement was clownish. But Tim McVeigh was not. Nor -- and, oddly, this example seems to go uncited on this thread -- were the assassins who killed doctors providing abortions to women, whose names were put in real crosshairs by a site much like the Palin poster.

Personally, I have no interest in what the Ds do one way or the other. I'm a slow politics guy and I think NV is the only way forward (Stirling's "put the body" is spot on, it's only that by temperament, skills, and possibly even morality (if that's not lack of courage) I'm not equipped for violent acts. And thinking about the events in Thailand, it's crystal clear that any leader who looks remotely like a general in sunglasses should be shunned like the plague.)

UPDATE Totally, totally agreed that the rage is not all on the right; the OFB in the 2008 primaries surely have taught us that. Heck, I'm pissed off a good deal of the time, though I try to maintain. I suppose I should have been calling out Palin for her rhetoric all this time too, but (a) if I started doing that, I wouldn't be able to do anything else (see Valhalla above, "plod through"), and (b) I couldn't bear to get into bed with the creative class, who are doing nothing else, most of the time. What a mess.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

The right would be demanding that the left disown an act even a fraction as violent. If the left has a single piece of wit about it, it would be to goad the moderates into demanding a denunciation, not only of the act, but of Palin's crosshairs, and SarahPac. The left should say "This is Terrorism!" because, in fact, it is terrorism.

If Palin's crosshairs and Sarahpac (based on the crosshairs?) are terrorism, then most all of our ordinary conversation is terrorism. One could certainly make a case that that the violence inherent in our ordinary conversation differs little from the language of terrorism, but in that case Palin's hardly a singular example.

What people are reacting to, I'm guessing, is that Stirling's post seems to taking advantage of a tragic situation to make a political point, via Sarah Palin, which may be much more loosely related to his larger point than it really is. In general, we reject this pretty much out of hand when the right does it, or Obama. I was genuinely surprised to read him doing it while at the same time making a distinction between right and left. The rejection on this thread seems to be to the via Palin part rather than against his point as a whole. And while it may not be correct to say that Stirling wrote this equation: Palin targets = Giffords assassination attempt, the Palin targets are the only picture attached to the post, she is the only person referenced in relation to right-wing violence, and she and her pac are the only ones attached to his claim that “This is terrorism.”

I'm not sure the fact that the Ds don't have the skills and cultural markers means squat. Ds don't have the skills and markers to the same extent, perhaps, but the question is not who has the greater gun culture (for instance) but whether the Ds have sufficient gun culture to produce the small number needed to create would-be assassins or people capable of lesser but still intimidating and silencing violence. For the latter, we have pretty good evidence of harassment from 2008. Actually shooting someone is a distinct section of a violence continuum, but it's still a continuum. The power of a small group to invoke fear and influence behavior by a very small group is a fundamental of terrorism (as opposed to “war”, although we could debate that point too). And while I too doubt that my “blood in the streets” example would have actually come to pass, that's only because the people making those threats mostly came from the D subsector that is too comfortable and privileged to risk the consequences of actual violence for a political cause (sports riots, on the other hand, are another matter entirely).

I could almost make an equivalent connection to male violence against women as the targetpic to assassination of a Democrat. Giffords is a Democrat and the shooter is apparently right-wing. Giffords is also a woman and the shooter is a man. Giffords is a woman of some power and the shooter is a man of (apparently) little power. Goodness knows there are a million optics more offensive and powerful than the targets of male-to-female violence around, we're swimming in them. The whole situation is just as likely to be gender terrorism as political terrorism.

As for the anti-abortion murder example, there's not many with clean hands there, eh? Even I don't think holding anti-abortion views is the same thing as facilitating, encouraging, or advocating murder.

The thing is, I agree with much of what I understand Stirling is saying. The right has claimed an admired cultural tradition – revolutionary action – and leveraged the enormous fear and rage in this country of the have-nots, and twisted it to serve furtherance of the oppressive regime rather than displacing it. And along the way, they are steadily normalizing even more violent conversation than is already normal in our violent culture. The trend won't be reversed until and unless some group takes a stand in rejection. But I'm really not sure the targetpic or even Palinpac is the most representative example of that.

Anyway, I'm obviously not equipped for violent acts either. Not that I don't have stray thoughts on occasion...

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

If ACLA's web site was an incitement to violence*, then Palin's crosshairs were too. I don't see a way to distinguish the cases. Do you? Typically, I would argue, "gender terrorism" is not incited by women, though I'm willing to be educated on the point. If I'm correct, then normalizing violence is happening right here on this thread, and from Palin's defenders, too.

I do agree (see my Summing Up comment below) that the connection to Palin is "loose" (yes, not direct). It would have been better to have more examples, which exist. However, Giffords/Palin is the news hook, and rightly so, in my opinion. One cannot decry normalizing violence on the one hand, and not decry Palin's crosshairs on the other!

* * *

I think we're agreed on the state of the discourse and the right. Thing is, violence in retaliation is, I think, exactly what the powers that be would like from the left; they want to deke us into it, because that, they know how to deal with. And the moderates would sell us (as "extremists") down the river in a heartbeat, just as they do on everything else.

NOTE * I'm not claiming that anti-abortions per se are an incitement to violence, since apparently that was not clear.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

WHO is arguing that the targetpics AREN'T part of the larger culture of violence (whether the general culture or Stirling's revolutionary reactionism)?

WHO is arguing that targetpics of doctors who perform abortions were not ok while Palin's pic was?

The only thing I see which even comes close is scoutt's link to all the Democratic-generated target pics with the comment (which I took for sarcasm) that maybe those graphics prompted the shooter.

And just for the people who might not click through to the link, here's the ACLA site:

the late 1990s, an organization called American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) was accused of implicitly advocating violence by its publication on its "Nuremberg Files" website of wanted-style posters, which featured a photograph of a physician who performed abortions along with a monetary reward for any information that would lead to his "arrest, conviction and revocation of license to practice medicine".[41] The ACLA's website described these physicians as war criminals[42] and accused them of committing “crimes against humanity” The web site also published names, home addresses, telephone numbers, and other personal information regarding abortion providers – highlighting the names of those who had been wounded and striking out those of who had been killed. Dr. George Tiller's name was included on this list along with many others. The site was accused of being a thinly-veiled hit list intended to incite violence; others claimed that it was protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

The ACLA clearly did a lot more than Palin (and again, the Democratic leadership) did, although it's definitely of the same genre.

And again, the only reason every knows about Palin's target pic is because it's Palin. Who besides the right was upset when Democrats posted their own crosshairs pics (oh, excuse me, bullseyes) before Palin posted hers?

I'm quickly losing the various comments and replies, but on your Summary comment, yes, scoutt overstated the case that "Nobody on the left was outraged" by the very abbreviated list is incorrect. My references to similar failure of action or rhetoric was aimed at the general "left" and not every single member. I should have been more clear. But since much of the left failed to object, or was in fact perpetrating and cheering on violent rhetoric against Clinton, Palin, and a number of other female politicians, plus we have the recent retreads by much of the left on the Assange allegations, the overall point still stands -- rhetorical violence seems to be a dominant concern in some cases yet not in others, in a noncoincidental way. Again, but much of the left.

Also noncoincidental is the failure of much of the left to even mention the damage to reproductive rights unless the origin is the right wing; I seem to remember pretty little outrage, for instance, from the visible left when the Democrats shoved reproductive rights under the rug for the convention, or when Obama signed the Stupak-satisfying EO. Much of the left has a lot to answer for before they start throwing stones at other people's glass houses.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

I would like the cases ACLA and the Palin cross-hairs distinguished.* Once more:

Why, if it's OK for Palin to name a political opponent who is also a woman, Gifford, and put her in crosshairs, was it not also OK for pro-lifers to name George Tiller and other doctors providing women with abortion services, while highlighting the names of those who had been wounded and striking out those of who had been killed. Distinguish the two cases, please.

I think that's a prima facie case that the Palin crosshairs and the ACLA crossing out are the same from the standpoint of incitement*. Here's one WHO -- at least by omission; as I say, a lot of the Palin apologias are unlinked hit-and-run comments, so it's hard to tell what point is being made.

So, until you distinguish the cases, I'm very much afraid that the "WHO" is you. A simle test:

Assassination and violence is a complex thing, and we know next to nothing about this shooter. Palin's ACLA's graphic is offensive, yes, but not really any more offensive than a 1000 violent images we plod through every day. And to imply a cause and effect relationship in this one case with only that as an example is not only crap, but distracts from the main point of the post, with which I otherwise mostly agree.

Already today I've read an easy dozen blogs making either the implicit or explicit connection between the target ACLA visual and the shooting. And I think it's more than just the rush to update ourselves on breaking news (h/t Lambert), but a rush to find simplistic answers, bias-confirming and ultimately reassuring answers. If only Palin ACLA wouldn't have put little targets on her website! This would never have happened!* [Deleting material on OFB "creative class" classism]

In addition, most of the Palin -- dare I say it -- apologists on this thread, though not precise about about they are defending Palin from, are most likely reacting to the Palin crosshairs, since that's the dominant imagery on the D/"progressive" side right now. Nothing to see here!

NOTE * Not, as a prophylactic, in terms of direct causation, but in terms of normalizing a discourse of violence.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

so why need I be the one to distinguish two cases which I'm not arguing are distinguishable?:

The ACLA clearly did a lot more than Palin (and again, the Democratic leadership) did, although it's definitely of the same genre.

What I'm questioning is the singling out of Palin for what is evidently a quite common practice across the political spectrum (as truncated as it is) and then associating it with a fatal shooting and terrorism. Why not call out the Democratic leadership as terrorists?

As far as I'm concerned, no one should be painting little targets on anyone's heads, not Palin, not on Palin, not on politicians D or R, not on doctors, not on clinic workers, not on anyone.

If Stirling's point is that the right is exploiting an appeal to revolutionary tradition, which moderates should be goaded into condemning, then how does focusing on an offensive but unexceptional violent usage serve to distinguish right-wing violence from any other type?

The key to Stirling's argument does relate to Palin, but not to her or others' targetpics:

In doing so, the right wing creates a dislocated, poor, populist front, which is a revolutionary class, in favor of a right wing revolution. Palin's embrace of this front is not coincidental, her record of governance shows that she is that creature that is constantly erased from historiography, and sociology, because it is inconvenient: the right wing socialist.

I'd go further than "inconvenient" to "unthinkable"; the erasure is fueled by the left's own attachment to the idea that they have an exclusive claim on populism. To admit otherwise simply destroys their own mythology and legitimacy. It's the populist rage which the right is harnessing which distinguishes Palin and the right's current violence-contributing rhetoric from the general movie-scenario type Stirling identifies. That's the part moderates and the left need to understand. Singling out the targetpics when Palin does it (or calling it terrorism) doesn't advance that understanding at all.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

Democrats "targeting" Republicans is hardly similar because there is no similar context within the Democratic party or elements thereof to tacitly condon either an armed citizenry, or "taking the law" into their own hands. There is no recent history of political violence, while there is plenty on the RW side (as Basement Angel documented). There is no Dem party equivalent to either the concealed carry movement (not Dem, and one of Stirling's points), nor the militia movement (not-Dem, my point), nor the anti-abortion movement (one of everybody's points), nor the anti-immigrant/border control movement (one of my points). Nor is there any eliminationist movement, or description of the RW as "Anti-American", there is no talk of "Second Amendment" solutions as Giffords last opponent brought up. Have any of these "trageted" Republicans received death threats from "left wingers"? Had guns dropped at their events?

Sorry, Palin has positioned herself as the leader of the reactionary, revolutionary, and menacingly violent faction of the Republican party. She has been dog-whistling them. These elements have a history of political violence. When elements of that element "go rogue", she can't avoid her portion of responsibility. Well, she probably can from the talking heads on teebee, but not from me, and I would have hoped not from anybody on Corrente.

Yes, yes, "Dems bad", but let's not reach for false equivalence. Obama is a fully-owned corporate stooge, Palin has basically sought to lead the thug alternative, and a wink and a nod to that crowd has so far been her most successful schtick.

Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....

This is not an isolated incident. Napolitano was the target of a mail attack earlier this week.

I missed that the first time, and shouldn't have. Another incident is Raul Grijalva.

Looking back on the thread, the "Don't blame Palin" posts look a lot like derailment, to me. I shouldn't have fallen for the bait. My bad.

* * *

Fine, a dozen blogs are doing it. Stirling didn't, I didn't. And the other blogs are never cited to. I made a classic moderator's error of giving general proffers, addressed to the air, and without linky goodness, credence instead of calling bullshit on them, on that ground, immediately. (The comments about "the left," here, were also bullshit, and I should have done better on that. Ditto the false equivalence on violent rhetoric between both legacy parties. I tried to clean out the Augean stables on that one elsewhere, and I have no time to invest in that here. The link offered as "evidently" proof of general practice has already been addressed; it's bullshit too. Quelle surprise.)

A good thread nevertheless, but "Look! Over there! Sarah Palin!" seems to be a tactic now universally used.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

... on a political opponent who later gets shot is going to face, at a minimum, a public relations nightmare, and rightly so. If pointing out that rather obvious fact, and its political implications ("... If the Democrats have any sense...."), be "blaming Palin," then so be it.

Whether the shooting itself (as opposed to the above, which is meta) is the equivalent of shooting Rabin -- that is, done for conscious and mainstreamed ideological reasons to affect public policy -- remains to be seen; based on the (alleged) shooters YouTube's and reading list, and assuming them not to be disinformation*, I don't think so.

NOTE * Like all the "lone gunmen" in the 60s somehow mysteriously left diaries for the FBI to discover.

The danger of blaming the opposition for this is that it gives the admin a perfect excuse to institute draconian police-state measures.
Shock Doctrine.
This happened in my home country way back. Someone exploded a molotov at an incumbent's rally and the next thing you know it was martial law.
If you look at who the admin is fronting -- banksters -- I think they would love the excuse to crack down more.

So far as "violence"... I've been a consistent advocate of non-violence as the only way forward for the left. And so snark about "maybe these images where the real cause" ... Well, it's a shame to see it here, and if my stomach weren't already like cast iron, it would... What's that word? "Sicken." That's the word.

NOTE I like the equivalence between FOX news, a former Vice Presidential candidate, and a blog with 1500 readers a day. That'll show 'em. Not to say that either legacy party is right -- they form a single system. But the role of the Rs is to wave the guns about (wrong) -- and kill the weak (wrong). And the role of the Ds is to obfuscate and ditehr (wrong) -- and kill the weak (wrong). Numerically, I'd say both end up in the same place. In this, Stirling gets it exactly right:

In large measure this is the fault of the moderates, they were happy with a "good enough" recovery, and have sat down and declared themselves the best of all possible worlds. Since this was a recovery for the rich, but not for everyone else, the inevitable result is violence in favor of the out party. Since there is no extreme left party available in any form, right wing socialism is the natural outlet for the violence.

Incidentally, there are several other AZ politicians who got death threats. It's not only Giffords.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

apparently did not read or understand what Newberry wrote. He is treating a socio-political phenomena that today took the form of a white male trying to kill a woman in authority. A few weeks ago it was middle aged white males flat out stating that another white, Julian Assange, ought to be killed, and killed quickly. And for months before that, it was any number and types of people suggesting that an African-American male, who happens to be our president, ought to be killed.

And the only thing that all those "any number and types of people" have in common is that they are all American conservatives, and tend to watch and listen to what can honestly be described only as hate radio and hate TV.

So let's stop wring our hands and whining that it's goulish or premature or some other bullshit nonsense to be "speculating" about who the assassin(s) is (are) and what his (their) motive(s) was (were). I absolutely agree with Newberry: this was a big step down toward reactionary revolution. And, political violence works.

Political violence works. The left is going to have to abandon its squeamishness on this issue and face some terrible truths. Political violence works. Christ, does NO ONE know any fucking history? The North won the Civil War, but lost the peace. How? Because political violence works. The unreconstructed Confederates formed the Ku Klux Klan, among other groups, and imposed an outright brutal and savage reign of terror against black people to maintain the same basic socio-economic system and structure of neo-feudalism in the South for a full damn century after the Civil War. Count the number of generations that were born and passed on under the simple grim reality that political violence maintained Jim Crow for over a hundred years.

One of the most heart-wrenching chapters of American history to read is the story of what happened to Southerners who fled their states to fight for the Union. Much has been written that the Union was saved by the 200,000 African-Americans who gathered under federal battle banners, three quarters of whom were former slaves. Rarely discussed or acknowledged is that 300,000 southern whites also joined the Union army, so that nearly a quarter of all Union armed forces, nearly one half million, actually came from the South. After the Civil War, their safety depended entirely on the presence of federal troops, and the retention of sheriff's offices and other police and judicial positions in their hands, or in the hands of their allies. When the North finally tired of the military occupation of the South in the 1870s, and federal troops withdrawn, hundreds of these former Southern Union soldiers, and the local politicians who had supported them after the War, were outright murdered. Thus was the Southern planter and mercantile aristocracy, militarily crushed just a decade before, able to regain control of the society.

Because political violence works. And it is what the conservatives will increasingly resort to as the simple force of reality stymies their fantasies and shatters their illusions. History may not repeat itself, but it sure has hell rhymes, and if you don't know the previous stanzas, you are a cripple waiting for what the future will impose on you.

... any more than it worked for the red shirts. And I don't recall violence working real well for the Chinese, the Russians, or the Germans -- millions of 'em. So, "works" how and for whom?

Of course, nobody who was serious on this issue would advocate it on an open forum. So this is an academic question only.

And if anything slips over into actual advocacy, I'll exercise my admin authority, crippled or no, and ban the post and the poster. Not least because the one to advocate violence is always the cop. I'm sure there are forums to be had for that, so go find 'em.

Violence is not the answer, the monopoly of violence is. The government's two core powers are creation of money and the monopoly of violence (constrained by the constitutional rights to due process, equal protection and "a republican form of government"). These core powers are related; the payment of taxes (levied by IRS agents) that must be paid in dollars (protected from counterfeiters by Secret Service agents) is what anchors demand for dollars.

Except for justifiable self defense-- and the grand jury gets to determine what's "justifiable"-- only the government is allowed to use the threat of violence to assert its will. Anyone who flouts that, regardless of their ideology, belongs in jail. Or they could do the world the favor and quietly move up to Alaska and live out their days in the wilderness like the kid in "Into the Wild" (as it happened, not all that many days).

I am trying to point out that in fact, political violence does work. Newberry points to the example of the right-ward lurch in Israel after the murder of Rabin. I am pointing to the imposition and maintenance of Jim Crow in the United States. And Jim Crow is an example I think has special relevance, because the "Southern heritage" makes up a rather large part of the modern American conservative.

And I am especially trying to point out the dynamic that the conservatives are now fully caught up in - as is Newberry. And, in each of your three examples - Chinese, the Russians, Germans - political violence was actually a key part of the rise to power of the extremist forces in each society. In that sense, political violence works. However, in the end - as Newberry makes the necessary and crucial point- "Political violence does not work, in that societies that lose their sense of civil norms, cease to function."

If you listen to Beck or Limbaugh or some other wrong-wing blowhard now, they are quite explicit about this: because of the liberal / socialist / communist victory of Obama, American society has ceased to function. They say it over and over again. In conjunction with the subtle and not-so-subtle allusions to violence and guns and so on. The wrong-wing in America is fully launched on this course, and the genius of what Newberry wrote this evening is that his prescriptions are the only ones I see so far that will avert the inevitable catastrophe without a resort to violence.

... and not other times. So a real analysis would distinguish the cases. And we also have very clear examples in the post-60s left, both here and in Europe, where violence was self-indulgent and delusional, romantic wankery -- advocated and implemented by non-working class individuals much like Stirling, or Ian, or, for that matter, me.

Elucidate the prescriptions; so far as I can tell -- I've been so busy shovelling back other bullshit on this thread I may be missing the point -- Stirling advocates for the Ds to do things that they won't do. So what to do? Re-establish civil norms? Rereading:

That means the willingness to put bodies in the line of fire, because otherwise, the center will see us as fair weather friends, and foul weather dead weights.

Gene Kranz: Let's look at this thing from a... um, from a standpoint of status. What do we got on the spacecraft that's good?
[pause]
Sy Liebergot: I'll get back to you, Gene.

I agree that the moderates are the problem (just as on fiscal policy). What Stirling points out is that the rental system is supported by pipes and that it's rigid and fragile. That to me is the strategic insight. I've been advocating ("slow politics") draining the pipes. That may be all I can do, but that doesn't mean it's adequate to the times.

NOTE Don't take rule 11 personally; I've meant to do that for some time, and this thread provided the occasion.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

1. I don't think Stirling makes the case "The right wing is in revolutionary mode" based on this one event; too much is not known about the shooter. But if he'd added the other examples of threatened and actual violence (not all directed against women) to his argument, he'd have a prima facie case. (And that's not the same thing as asserting that there's a direct causal relationship from Palin -> cross hairs poster -> Giffords attempted association, or that Stirling asserted one.)

2. I do think that Stirling is right on the larger analysis; what the Ds should do, and what they won't do; and that it's "the fault of the moderates."

3. Why, if it's OK for Palin to name a political opponent who is also a woman, Gifford, and put her in crosshairs, was it not also OK for pro-lifers to name George Tiller and other doctors providing women with abortion services, while highlighting the names of those who had been wounded and striking out those of who had been killed. Distinguish the two cases, please.

I'd rather not be writing on any of this, since both legacy parties are the same suck. But here we are.

NOTE I'm also getting pretty sick of the talking point on this thread (e.g.) that "the left" had nothing to say about the violent and misogynist rhetoric and treatment meted out against Hillary Clinton during the primaries. How many hundreds of posts from me, from Vast Left, from Paul Lukasiak (to mention the males, for reasons I think ought to be obvious) do I need to cite to disprove that obvious and careless canard? Or are we not on "the left"? Heck, that was one of the things that made me support Hillary, because it was wrong, and I admired her for standing up to it.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

I will say that it is very difficult for me to believe that Palin and/or Palin's advisors were completely unaware of the anti-abortion rhetoric and techniques when they created those ads. Social conservatives, including right-to-lifers, are her base. This group, more than any other, have propelled her to power in the GOP. She has specifically worked to rally them around her. The idea that she has no idea of the imagery or tactics of the anti-abortion people is extremely difficult for me to believe. If Palin didn't know it, then she's even stupider than the caricatures make her out to believe. Of course she knew the tie in - she was using is subliminally to add power to the ads and messaging. To tie her further to her base.

Now, does that mean that Sarah Palin specifically intended for some guy to go out and literally shoot one of her "targets"? No. But let's not go back to the days when liberals denied there was, in fact, a "vast right-wing conspiracy" or forget that Palin is part of it. There is a very tight knit of GOP operatives who advise and run all of the right-wing activity and candidates (just as there seem to be the same group of advisors who pop up regardless of who leads the Democratic Party). Just because she's a woman doesn't change the fact that she has ties to the right-wing, just like Obama's being black doesn't keep him from being part of the Chicago School cabal.

Personally, I no longer give politicians the benefit of the doubt on the marketing memes and images they use. Folks at Palin's level have incredibly sophisticated and savvy marketing people working with them and for them. They know what their images mean to their audiences, that's why they use them. I also give Palin enough credit to think she knows what she's doing and isn't some sort of savant who just happens to push all of these cultural buttons by accident as she's marketed herself.

Which doesn't mean there haven't been attacks on Palin for her gender and her outsider status. One of the interesting things to me that I keep meaning to post about, but haven't, is the hostility so much of the establishment GOP has against her. But none of that makes her immune from the consequences of her own actions. The way never to have to explain why you violent imagery advertisement didn't lead to a shooting is not to run one in the first place.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

The reason why Sarah Palin was used as an example is precisely because she has manipulated herself into that position! If you were actually watching the news (Fox News especially), her name was scrawling across the bottom every other minute. You can't ignore her involvement in this, she has made sure of that!

And what has been her involvement? Sarah Palin has been normalizing a reactionary, and revolutionary political movement since she first came on the scene. Her entire schtick is built around a very coy and manipulative rebranding of the most violent, reactionary element of the Right Wing, especially the Evangelist Christian Right Wing. The same element that is in bed with the militia movement, the "border" patrol movement, and tons of other groups. The same element which tut-tuts anti-abortion violence (but not without mentioning the "violence" to the "unborn" in the same breath). All of these elements advocate taking the law (as they see it) into their own hands, just like Stirling above alludes to. Although the "cross-hairs" poster is only the latest example, it isn't the only example. As BDBlue points out, if you are saying Palin isn't knowingly doing this, then you are saying Palin is an incompetent fool.

I'm going to go further than Lambert, if you are excusing Sarah Palin for her role in dogwhistling political violence, then you are just as complicit as the moderates that Stirling describes in his post. Sarah Palin (like Beck, like Limbaugh, like Bachmann, like, like, like) is a cancer, and that is gender-neutral.

Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....

I don't have time to do these (work is crushing me the next few weeks), but two things I would love to see is 1) a more in-depth discussion or right-wing socialism and its historical context and 2) an exploration of right-wing violent marketing and imagery, including connecting it to certain operatives. My guess is that you could draw a diagram that interconnects a lot of the rhetoric, it isn't just Palin, it's a whole network of right-wing folks who have hooked up with Palin and other GOPers. While Palin is part of the problem, the problem would exist without her - she's like Obama that way. Seeing the larger picture, including where Palin fits in, is useful. Just as looking at Wall Street and the marketing of disaster capitalism and where Obama fits in is useful.

Along those lines, whatever comes after this shooting, you can bet it won't involve any talk of gun laws because the gun industry, like so much of corporate America, is now part of the base of both political parties. You can be for individual liberty and even a right to own guns and still recognize the cancer that is the gun industry and its need to constantly sell more guns and how that need leads to marketing campaigns that thrive on the idea of a culture of violence. None of which, of course, will be discussed by our elite no matter how many people are shot.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

either literally or figuratively. A lot of "progressives" don't do what they should to oppose violence, they instead either try to replicate it on their side with violent rhetoric or, more often, see it as a political opportunity to show how crazy the opposition is and to use it to fundraise and rally voters around the corrupt Democratic Party. In this way, as in so many others, both parties actually work together.

Just as Valhalla is right and "progressives" will continue to largely be silent about the causes of the rage in the populace. Stirling is by and large right, IMO, about the role rage plays in our society and there is nothing on either side that seriously addresses it. Both are looking mostly for ways to exploit it.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

Rereading what I wrote I realized it looked like I was talking to you personally and that was absolutely not what I intended. In fact, I think we agree on this topic completely.

This has existed long before Palin, she has just manuevered herself in front of the wave. That doesn't mean she can escape responsibility. In fact, as an actual politician (not a Beck, or Limbaugh), she has greater responsibility.

Sorry, I don't fall in love with politicians. I'm not that desperate.....

is a recurring theme over at Orcinus. David Neiwert wrote a series beginning in December 2006 which he later published as Eliminationism in America. The series is linked on the left hand side of his blog. He has a post up over at Crooks and Liars today. For those who regard this as an isolated individual crazy person's action and not as a terrorist political act, I would recommend the historical, logical account and analysis that Neiwart provided five years ago about the rising probability of such things.

As you say in the post you link to, "one important consideration is the provenance of the claims.** I grant that doesn't affect their validity, but it does provide the context for investigation." I'm not going to defend any of the 2008 Obama enablers, but I find Neiwert's analysis of eliminationist rhetoric and its mainstreaming valid -- the provenance of the claims doesn't affect their validity.

Not calling bullshit on the Obama campaign, particularly in its use of dishonest, tribalist tools removes the trust I might otherwise grant to an analyst. However, I'll still work through the analysis to see if it is persuasive to me, and I think Neiwert's work in this area is informative.

However, I'm not going to be "coming home" to the Ds in 2012. However, since the legacy parties are both fully committed to strategic hate management, it seems like there ought to be some alternatives.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

And it is degrading to talk of it as if it were a random car accident. The shooter does not exist in a vacuum. He was in a carry conceal state, in an environment that has given people permission to go out in a violent blaze of glory to express their alienation and despair. This is beyond politics: Hollywood, as I pointed out, feeds on the same corpses in the movies it makes, as the right wing does, and Hollywood leans generally to the left on everything except perpetual copyrights.

The specific violence was directed by right wing memes, at two targets of right wing ire: the judge had ruled in favor of undocumenteds, and has been receiving death threats ever since. The specifics of the shooters target were shaped by right wing populism, as an examination of the few artifacts he left behind, which I had already seen by the time of the post, show.

However, leaving aside the disparaging tone born of emotional stress, posters are not wrong in seeing that both Sarah Palin and Gabby Giffords as women, both as the madonna who graces violence, and as the most acceptable target of violence. Both are the same in that they are figures who give permission. Giffords was the target because she gave people permission to be Democrats in a violently, and I mean that literally, conservative area. Roll is not as symbolic, even though he is dead, and Giffords lives, because while he was a legitimizer, he is not a young madonna.

As should be in the news by now, and was easily ascertainable from the facts then, there was a handler, and that handler is not a young alienated man, but someone much more capable and pulled together, and it is his agenda that this act was meant to serve.

As for the treatment of this as a car accident, the facts reject it. The right wing has flooded the country with firearms, legalized carry conceal, flooded the air waves with elimiationism, created communities which the alienated can find a place. Yes, the individual who fired the gun is almost certainly a victim of mental illness. But, as the chanters in the '70's said "Attica, Attica, no mattah how you figyah, it was Rockie pulled the triggah." Letting a rabid dog loose in a playground leads to an expected result. That is even the standard of the law: if a reasonable individual would know the consequences of an event, then we may presume intent.

Any reasonable individual knows what the result of calling for violence, and describing the opposition as "socialist" and preaching "birther" plots. Any reasonable individual knows what promoting militia rhetoric is. Any reasonable person knows what comparing the President to a tyrant means.

A people who kill those who serve, will soon serve those who kill. But the soldier, the assassin, is merely the claw of a rough beast that drags a nation into the abyss. The people have a natural right to revolution, and if that is our desire, let us be on with it. But the people do not have a natural right to assassination of those who have not flagrantly avoided prosecution for the same reason: because people have a natural right to live under their arrangements without corruption. If the right wants to try and overthrow the government, then let them attempt it, knowing that others will move with equal force to maintain it. But to engage in thuggish coercion is not a revolution, it is merely a crime.

Early Sunday, the authorities released a photograph taken from surveillance video of a possible accomplice in the shooting. But the man later contacted sheriff’s deputies, who determined that he was a taxi driver who dropped the suspect at the mall where the shooting took place and then entered the supermarket with him when he did not have sufficient change.

So lets not get ahead of ourselves....

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

The conservatives are running this effort as a national campaign -- but that's not where the real fight is. The terror that fuels fascism is always intensely, intimately local in scale. Fascist goon squads always recruit from the neighborhood -- they're built on people you know. Since that's where they start, that's where they have to be stopped.

This is why all the best tactics involve community-level action. The high-level fight in Congress and the media is already underway, and the Democratic leadership is fighting it with unusual elan [HAW. In fact, they do nothing because the two legacy parties are one entity.] But anybody who sits this one out because they assume that the folks in DC have it all handled for them shouldn't be surprised when they start getting "special treatment" from longtime neighbors, or discover that they can't park their car downtown any more without having it vandalized. That's just the next baby step up from where we are now; and in some places, it's already started to happen. Winning this means getting out there and defending our community's standards and boundaries now, while they're still there to be defended.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

That is why I gave a disclaimer to that effect. I don't have cable TV, for one thing. (I don't think this discounts what I have said, however, but does not take all variables into account.)

Stirling's point that the second person was probably a handler makes sense to me. I do think that the Tea Party followers are being manipulated. And it makes sense to me that the operatives around Palin know exactly what they are doing.

For some reason, the movie 'A Face in the Crowd' came to my mind last night. It was not about the correlation any particular people, but about the crowd phenomenon.

I also felt, last night, that we kind of got off into the weeds, and that Stirling's points were not the focus, because of the reactions surrounding Palin (which is an interesting topic in itself, as BD points out.)

Now you cite this article about local violence. I have a personal reaction because I have already been subjected to ostracism, vandalism and assault for not being the 'norm', by my neighbors - all men and one 'girlfriend' - a sort of mob psychology. These people are an Obama believer and Tea Party types. What upsets me is not the perpetrator, a bully, but the fact that the others enable him and that the police will not protect me.

I can never advocate violence, although I imagine I am capable of it if I were defending myself or someone else. I am with Ghandi. I believe that you can effect change without it. It may cost you, but so does violence anyway.

Re: Normalizing violence. I feel that it has already occurred. I take your point that we do not want to feed it.

Often, the repressed feelings come out ruthlessly among the young, too. Who are so confused, fused with, the dysfunctional adults and still not as adept at numbing out.

Anger is a secondary feeling. Core feeling before that is sadness and pain.

When no outlet for feelings, numbed ostrich state encouraged in this society. Hard snarky cynical analyses, there is a disconnect to the heart. Often the messengers of real empathy and feeling are the ones who draw the fiercest fire.

Coming out of numbness, feeling triggers some pain. Like frostbite recovery. It stings. But it is recovery. Our society needs to go through that recovery transition. The monstrousness of the US killing machine. All the kabuki bullshit of the leadership and media. Corporate media is biggest enemy for authentic feelings. Here is what you are thinking and feeling it tells us.

Do you think this is a feeling society? I don't. Look at the obstinancy about even talking about universal health care. From the Dems, let alone the Repubs. Look at the wars. Patriarchy is not big on feelings. It is about power and control and competition.

Corporation psychopathic power and profit is all is the role-modeling.

Sarah Palin, one of her heros is Simon Cowell. Not the role model for empathy.

America is an anti-feeling society.

Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare. (Japanese proverb)

Some feelings are privileged over others. Hate, anger, fear. Greed. Those are approved and encouraged feelings, at least by our elites ("strategic hate management") so for those feelings, America is pro-feeling. Nor are feelings necessarily good in themselves, surely. (Is murderous rage "authentic"? Why or why not?

When we get down to the qualifications on primary vs. secondary, authentic vs. inauthentic, empathy vs. numbing, I'm totally with you. But I also try to call things by their right names, and "anti-feeling," since it over-simplifies what you say, and points the way to no remedy, "anti-feeling" isn't the right name.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

I do think that there is this "suck it up and don't feel" testosteroney, hyper-masculinized, action over feeling, patriarchichal mode going on that I am trying to call out ... and sometimes simplicity is the bottom line. Why the suicides in the military are shooting up as well as massive but denied "collateral damage" (heinous vocab) I am sure. Look at the entire Congress being so afraid of being labeled "soft on terrorism" they are willing to enable war crimes.

Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare. (Japanese proverb)

a subconversation on another blog that somehow feels relevant.
I agree that we tend to live numbed lives. Lifestyles where we're not fully present. Quiet core feeling (e.g. quiet sadness) suppressed. In our culture, nature is suppressed both externally and internally. Instead always trying to control things (e.g. read Adorno and Horkheimer's Dialectic of the Enlightenment). Acting out of ego.

Palin is not the only politician taking heat in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy - critics are also pointing the finger at Giffords' general election opponent, Jesse Kelly. The liberal website firedoglake noted that Kelly held an event on June 12th urging supporters to "Get on Target for Victory in November/Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office/Shoot a fully automatic M15 with Jesse Kelly."

Here's how the Arizona Daily Star described the event at the time:

Jesse Kelly, meanwhile, doesn't seem to be bothered in the least by the Sarah Palin controversy earlier this year, when she released a list of targeted races in crosshairs, urging followers to "reload" and "aim" for Democrats. Critics said she was inciting violence.

He seems to be embracing his fellow tea partier's idea. Kelly's campaign event website has a stern-looking photo of the former Marine in military garb holding his weapon. It includes the headline: "Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly."

Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare. (Japanese proverb)

Winter is coming so PLEASE help lambert...

... who is going into the this winter having sunk a bundle into an insulating project so he doesn't bleed money into the air, for starters, and still needs to pay the bills so he can feed the hamsters that power the wheels that turn the servers at The Mighty Corrente Building. Please, won't you help keep the hamsters shiny and well-fed?

No PayPal Account required! Give the hamsters immediate relief!

Or Subscribe to make a monthly payment!

Corrente is completely supported by contributions from readers (and, to be fair, a tiny smidge of Powell's commissions). We do not take advertising, so we can say whatever the Fuck we want. Thank you!

The 12-point platform

"The 12-Point Platform" is a simple list of common-sense programs that will benefit every American, no matter their class, gender, race, or age (PDF).

Citibank Plutonomy files

"What could go wrong?
Beyond war, inflation, the end of the technology/productivity wave, and financial collapse, we think the most potent and short-term threat would be societies demanding a more ‘equitable’ share of wealth."

Corrente Fellows (emeritus)

Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment (snort) advice, or legal advice, or medical advice, or any kind of advice. BANKSTER WEASEL PROPHYLACTIC: The word "alleged" is deemed to occur before the word "fraud." Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.